Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T01:47:17.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to Dicamba

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

K. C. Hamilton  and
H. F. Arle
K. C. Hamilton
Affiliation:
Arizona Agric. Exp. Stn., Tucson, AZ 85721
H. F. Arle
Affiliation:
Arizona Agric. Exp. Stn., Phoenix, AZ 85040
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Single over-the-top and directed applications of dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid) were made to cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Deltapine 16′). Dicamba applied over-the-top of cotton caused foliage malformation for about 6 weeks. Dicamba (32 g/ha) applied to cotton foliage 3 to 15 weeks after emergence reduced average cotton yields. Applications of 16 to 64 g/ha of dicamba over-the-top of cotton before bloom had less effect on cotton foliage, yield, boll components, and fiber properties than application at bloom. Directed applications of dicamba to the soil or to the base of cotton and soil caused foliage malformation but did not affect cotton yield, boll components, and fiber properties.

Keywords

Phytotoxicityfiber properties
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 27 , Issue 6 , November 1979 , pp. 604 - 607
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Arle, H. F. 1954. The sensitivity of Acala 44 cotton to 2,4-D. Proc. West. Weed Control Conf. 14:20–25.Google Scholar
2. Arle, H. F. and Hamilton, K. C. 1976. Over-the-top applications of herbicides in cotton. Weed Sci. 24:166–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Auch, D. E. and Arnold, W. E. 1978. Dicamba use and injury on soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci. 26:471–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Goodman, V. H., Ennis, W. B., and Palmer, R. D. 1955. Cotton responses to 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, MCP and related growth regulators. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 8:76–81.Google Scholar
5. Hamilton, K. C. and Heathman, E. S. 1972. The use and hazards of 2,4-D on crops in Arizona. Arizona Coop. Ext. Serv. Folder 168. 6 pp.Google Scholar
6. Hamilton, K. C., McRae, G. N., and Arle, H. F. 1958. Effects on upland cotton of chlorophenoxy herbicides applied to the soil. Res. Prog. Rep., West. Weed Control Conf. pp. 72–73.Google Scholar
7. Kittock, D. L. and Arle, H. F. 1977. Termination of late season cotton fruiting with plant growth regulators. Crop Sci. 17:320–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Kittock, D. L., Arle, H. F., Henneberry, T. J., and Bariola, L. A. 1978. Chemical termination of late-season cotton fruiting in Arizona and California, 1972—76. U.S. Dep. Agric. ARS W-52. 126 pp.Google Scholar
9. Porter, W. K., Thomas, C. H., and Baker, J. B. 1959. A three-year study on the effects of some phenoxy herbicides on cotton. Weeds 7:341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Watson, A. J. 1955. The response of cotton to low rates of 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, MCP, and silvex. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 8:82–86.Google Scholar
11. Wax, L. M., Kruth, L. A., and Slife, F. W. 1969. Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci. 17:388–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar